← All Phrases

“reassessment proceedings”

ReassessmentSections 147-151Sections 147-1518,150 judgments

The decision most relied on for reassessment proceedings is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reassessment proceedings

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar
268 ITR 332 · 2004 · High Court
695
citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, by issuing a notice under Section 148, must be judged solely on the reasons originally recorded by the Assessing Officer. These recorded reasons cannot be supplemented, improved upon, or modified at any later stage.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT
336 ITR 136 · 2011 · High Court
398
citing judgments

In reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, the Assessing Officer can assess other income not specified in the original notice if the initial ground for reopening assessment is found to be valid. However, if the income for which the assessment was initially reopened is found not to have escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to assess any other income.

Judgments citing reassessment proceedings

Safali Mahendrakumar Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalsafali Mahendrakumar Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ishwar Smruti, B/H. Gunatit Jyot Ward 4, Na, Shree Ram Vihar, Vallabh Anand Vidyanagar, Anand, Vv Nagar, Gujarat-388120 [Pan :Bohpp 5776 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act Dated 16.12.2019 Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Same As Valid.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69

Safali Mahendrakumar Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee’s share in the said property was one-fourth, amounting to Rs.18

Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Malegaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.358/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Baglan Prathmik Shikshak Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Malegaon. Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nampur, Baglan, Nashik- 423204. Pan : Aadab1392C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Making Various Additions Other Than The Reasons For Which The Case Was Reopened, I.E. Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period, As He Was Satisfied With Explanation Offered During The Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, Other Additions Are Not Permissible As Per The Provisions Of Section 147, In View Of The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Jet Airways (1) Ltd. 331 Itr 236 (Bom).

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

which the case was reopened, i.e. cash deposited in bank during demonetization period, as he was satisfied with explanation offered during the course of reassessment proceedings, other additions are not permissible as per the provisions of section 147, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

reassessment proceedings — 8,150 case laws | BharatTax